|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 2, 2024 8:15:58 GMT -5
I think the coloring is the same, it's just the different between newsprint and glossy white paper. I've never had a problem with it. It's a little sad they correct all the errors (those are always a chuckle in the original) but I don't have any issue reading Epics. They are my favorite reprint format for sure!
That said, I do enjoy reading the originals to get more into the era, with the ads the bulletin page, etc. But, OTOH, I have enough Marvel and DC originals that I often find I'm already familiar with the ads and the bulletins when I get to them, from other comics from that month I own.
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 2, 2024 8:18:19 GMT -5
@supercat wrote this:
Absolutely!
Life is filled with examples of ‘fixing’ what doesn’t need to be fixed. I mean, there are times when soft drinks change a recipe and I want to scream, “WHO ASKED FOR THAT?!”
Years ago, Royal Mail, an iconic centuries-old brand, changed its name to Consignia. Stupid! After a backlash, they became Royal Mail again. I guess some person was paid a LOT to come up with the name Consignia (which sounds like an evil emperor in 2000 AD or something). I wanted to say to the management, “NOT ONE person - EVER - thought Royal Mail needed to change its name. Not on this planet, not in this solar system, not in this galaxy, not in this universe. EVER!” Some politician probably got a knighthood for suggesting the name change.
Like everyone here, I’ve mixed in comic reading circles, both at school and as an adult. I can’t think of one time when anyone I know has ever mentioned how colouring needs to be fixed.
On a philosophical level, I prefer to see things as intended, which is why I hated George Lucas’ tinkering. The ONLY exception for me was when some of Gerry Anderson’s shows were remastered. But as for others, no. I want to see Star Trek: TOS as intended, CGI updates don’t interest me. I don’t want music changed (I understand music changes for licensing reasons, but not for creative ones). It actually pisses me off when they tinker with things, recolouring or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Oct 2, 2024 8:20:12 GMT -5
When original colouring is a bit wonky I can see why they had another bash in 1983. The 1983 attempt has some problems, like the yellow pavement/yellow wall/yellow metal thing/yellow text box conglomeration, but at least the horses became horse coloured. My primary resentment of reprint colouring has more to do with taking adequate colouring and making it flat and garish and wrong. Of course over rendering/modelling/applying gradients is also horrible for old material. One example- the Steranko reprints in the 2000s not only had crap modern colouring but the line art was scanned at a very low resolution, leaving visible pixels all over the pages! Every individual involved in those reprints deserves to be banned from ever being employed in the comics industry again. I definitely agree with that, the worst offenses are taking original coloring and downgrading it sometimes badly in the process. But I also factor in originality. One of the reasons I like to pick up reprints is to experience comics as they were originally published. If I'm reading Micronauts #1, just give me as close to what was going on in 1979 when it came out. It was clearly fine enough then for the series to do well, and having read the original issues myself back then I never thought "geez, love the series, but someone needs to fix this coloring". Plus, who's to say what's a "normal" horse color in the Microverse haha! 99% of the time I'd just stick with the original coloring and fix the odd error on a page. Like a hand coloured the same as the sky, or a character with a jacket that appears to frequently change colour through the course of an issue. Some DC 80s comics I own stick out in my mind as looking horrendous to the point of simply requiring redoing including some issues of Sandman, New Teen Titans and Swamp Thing. I've seen conversations online of colourists that look back and lament their efforts and intents being destroyed in the latter steps of the production process! Those three in particular had original issues I found very hard to read because the colour was so terrible. Early reprints tended to merely amplify the mess, incredibly.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 2, 2024 8:22:39 GMT -5
It's all about economics (MRP probably has said).. back in the day, newsprint was the cheapest paper.. now it's a niche and more expensive that the bright white stuff we all use from Staples... hence, comics on white, glossy paper.
I feel like this is like the argument people make about records... they say the sound is more 'warm' but it's really just nostalglia vibes I think. Once the reality and inconvienence rears its head, then people go, hey, maybe digital isn't so bad after all.
I think alot of you guys that don't like modern coloring also don't read alot(or any) of modern comics... if you did, you'd probably take it for what it is (there are high points) and not have such a reaction on reprints.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Oct 2, 2024 8:23:20 GMT -5
I think the coloring is the same, it's just the different between newsprint and glossy white paper. Please understand the colourists chose the colours they did in full knowledge of how colours altered in the traditional printing process and on newsprint. It's not faithful to reuse the colour code and saturation percentage on modern glossy paper. They would never ever have wanted the comics they coloured to appear as they do in modern reprints. I'll try to dig out the guide sheets colourists worked from... Here's what colourists used to work from: Here's what the reprint colourists work from: Wrong wrong wrong
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 2, 2024 8:23:54 GMT -5
That Omnibus reprint is one of the better ones I have seen. Unlike many others which have the current flaws. The reprints in the 80s on baxter paper were usually recolored without reference to the originals.
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 2, 2024 8:59:12 GMT -5
It's all about economics (MRP probably has said).. back in the day, newsprint was the cheapest paper.. now it's a niche and more expensive that the bright white stuff we all use from Staples... hence, comics on white, glossy paper. I feel like this is like the argument people make about records... they say the sound is more 'warm' but it's really just nostalglia vibes I think. Once the reality and inconvienence rears its head, then people go, hey, maybe digital isn't so bad after all. I think alot of you guys that don't like modern coloring also don't read alot(or any) of modern comics... if you did, you'd probably take it for what it is (there are high points) and not have such a reaction on reprints. I don’t know if that works for me because garish is garish (subjective though it is), and when the likes of Hobgoblin and wallpapers look like Dulux’s yellow paint has been used, well I’m not sure that’d work in any era. Less is often more. I do read modern comics, and have enjoyed the likes of the Spider-Man “Beyond” arc and Immortal Hulk, so I feel it’s a bit of a broad brush to assume that criticisms of reprint recolouring is somehow tied to nostalgia and not reading comics.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2024 9:05:44 GMT -5
It's all about economics (MRP probably has said).. back in the day, newsprint was the cheapest paper.. now it's a niche and more expensive that the bright white stuff we all use from Staples... hence, comics on white, glossy paper. I feel like this is like the argument people make about records... they say the sound is more 'warm' but it's really just nostalglia vibes I think. Once the reality and inconvienence rears its head, then people go, hey, maybe digital isn't so bad after all. I think alot of you guys that don't like modern coloring also don't read alot(or any) of modern comics... if you did, you'd probably take it for what it is (there are high points) and not have such a reaction on reprints. Analog "warmth" in recording and music gear in general is 100% real. As a guitar player I can tell you that the holy grail is still vacuum tube powered amplification and acceptance of digital tools is often measure by how well it simulates that. One reason digital is a problem is that it's simply "too perfect", you don't get some of the natural imperfections or "artifacts" that create that perceived warmth. Modulation effects, echo type reverbs, you name it, we want the warmth in a lot of applications. Has nothing to do with nostalgia, it's as simple as what sounds good on the ears. There ARE more modern players who can live with the digital stuff more, but it's all about convenience and "close enough" versus truly thinking the digital adds something. It's like saying music sounds good with ear buds, plenty of people are just fine but if you put on a proper set of studio headphones, it's not even close. I'm not saying ALL music sounds better this way either, but I've played old vinyl (actual old vinyl, not a newer record pressed from a CD recording) through my vintage stereo for younger people before at my house and it's awesome seeing their jaws drop when they hear how good music can actually sound. As for modern coloring and the presumption of not actually reading modern comics? I can't speak for others, but in my case not remotely the case. Despite my general love of older material, I've still read truckloads of modern stuff and have plenty in the collection. My comments are more about how much I like it versus how much exposure I've had. And while I would not remotely consider myself as strong an artist as I am a musician, I have trained in various digital tools and used to be an adjunct instructor in multimedia at a local college so not entirely a neophyte. In more simple terms of why I like older comic book coloring, it is simply the aesthetic to my tastes. And yes, the old argument "well, they only colored that way because of the limitations of the time...", of course that explains the "why". But those limitations ended up creating a charm in their own way, and that's the more important aspect to me.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Oct 2, 2024 9:20:12 GMT -5
The other easy argument against the garish reprint colours, especially yellow, is that for easy reading of a comic you make the subject of the image stand out from the background. In the past, Yellow 50% or Yellow 100% were muted and frequently used as background colours. In modern reprints your eyes are frequently guided to the wrong parts of the image, because any random part of the image might now suddenly pop most vibrantly.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Oct 2, 2024 9:24:18 GMT -5
What we don't need to do is bring back newsprint, melting away fine details in line work. Emulation isn't terribly hard, and a clean and sharp version of the originals is possible, even on glossy paper. Slightly off white glossy paper can work well in some instances, while other times matte paper can be preferable. Colours need to be adjusted to both, though- I've seen EU reprints switch from glossy to matte without the adjustment and look too muted! Painted art, or painted colours, also get wrecked by matte, as anyone that has bought an art book printed on matte paper can probably testify.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 2, 2024 9:40:42 GMT -5
I think there's middle ground here. A lot of modern reprint coloring has looked bad. It just does. It's garish and it bleeds in to the line-work muting the art. I think you can say that without getting in to "stay off my lawn" territory. That said, a lot of old time coloring was awful as well. And when companies were going through format changes or tech changes, forget about it...the coloring was horrific. But I read a decent amount of new comics (not superhero comics) and the coloring is, by and large, far superior to what we got when I was a kid. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing.
As to the "warmth" (whatever the hell that means) of vinyl...I'll just accept that the musician can hear it. But I sure as hell can't. Which is probably a failing in in ears. Or somewhere in my noggin. But I can't hear what they do, so I'm not going to say it isn't there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2024 10:07:19 GMT -5
As to the "warmth" (whatever the hell that means) of vinyl...I'll just accept that the musician can hear it. But I sure as hell can't. Which is probably a failing in in ears. Or somewhere in my noggin. But I can't hear what they do, so I'm not going to say it isn't there. It's not a failing, and nor is all old vinyl "magically superior" by any means. The "warmth" is one of those terms thrown around that sometimes mean different things to different people, but generally speaking, I'll call it a little more natural sounding in a pleasing way. I can list plenty of old albums that sound like pure crud, and certain aspects of production have absolutely gotten better over the years. It's not all or nothing by any means. And this might bring up an important nuance. There's "cork sniffing" type comments where people get snobby about stuff like old vinyl and it's more affectation than they really "hear it" I think sometimes, and then there's true audiophile where if you hear it, you hear it, and it's a beautiful thing. That's all I mean by "it's real", not that you can't enjoy music otherwise by any means, but the suggestion that people who DO hear it are just having nostalgia is not true was my point. And despite all the comments on recoloring, I have a massive library of Masterworks which I enjoy just fine. It's not my "preferred" coloring for all of the reasons folks have discussed above, but once I start reading I can kind of forget about it and just enjoy the stories in spite of it. But I tell you, when I open the giant Taschen Amazing Spider-Man volume of original Ditko era art which endeavored to get the coloring really historically accurate (at least on the first volume), oh it's breathtaking. No modern comic book is going to give me that reaction, I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2024 10:15:45 GMT -5
What we don't need to do is bring back newsprint, melting away fine details in line work. Emulation isn't terribly hard, and a clean and sharp version of the originals is possible, even on glossy paper. Slightly off white glossy paper can work well in some instances, while other times matte paper can be preferable. Colours need to be adjusted to both, though- I've seen EU reprints switch from glossy to matte without the adjustment and look too muted! Painted art, or painted colours, also get wrecked by matte, as anyone that has bought an art book printed on matte paper can probably testify. I think era is important as well, my original Silver Age books often still look great to read these days. Whereas a fair number of my beloved Bronze Age newsprint books look like poo, the paper is so bad and the printing can be hard on the eyes. Sometimes the reprints are a relief just so I can comfortably read them. I still want the "originality" of the coloring and all, but a clean printing job.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 2, 2024 10:36:51 GMT -5
What we don't need to do is bring back newsprint, melting away fine details in line work. Emulation isn't terribly hard, and a clean and sharp version of the originals is possible, even on glossy paper. Slightly off white glossy paper can work well in some instances, while other times matte paper can be preferable. Colours need to be adjusted to both, though- I've seen EU reprints switch from glossy to matte without the adjustment and look too muted! Painted art, or painted colours, also get wrecked by matte, as anyone that has bought an art book printed on matte paper can probably testify. I think era is important as well, my original Silver Age books often still look great to read these days. Whereas a fair number of my beloved Bronze Age newsprint books look like poo, the paper is so bad and the printing can be hard on the eyes. Sometimes the reprints are a relief just so I can comfortably read them. I still want the "originality" of the coloring and all, but a clean printing job. Part of that may be due to attempts to cut costs and keep the product cheap. Around 1975 or so DC went from printing with metal plates to plastic plates as a cost saving measure. The result was visibly worse printing than what Marvel was still getting from printing at the same time. It ultimately did get better as the tech improved. It's honestly funny that DC later became the standard bearer (at least as to the "Big Two") for trying out better paper and better (eventually) printing processes.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Oct 2, 2024 10:36:54 GMT -5
What we don't need to do is bring back newsprint, melting away fine details in line work. Emulation isn't terribly hard, and a clean and sharp version of the originals is possible, even on glossy paper. Slightly off white glossy paper can work well in some instances, while other times matte paper can be preferable. Colours need to be adjusted to both, though- I've seen EU reprints switch from glossy to matte without the adjustment and look too muted! Painted art, or painted colours, also get wrecked by matte, as anyone that has bought an art book printed on matte paper can probably testify. I think era is important as well, my original Silver Age books often still look great to read these days. Whereas a fair number of my beloved Bronze Age newsprint books look like poo, the paper is so bad and the printing can be hard on the eyes. Sometimes the reprints are a relief just so I can comfortably read them. I still want the "originality" of the coloring and all, but a clean printing job. I agree with all of that- my Silver Age books tend to look nice internally, while my Bronze Age comics can look awful. I think either storage or luck makes a difference with Bronze Age books, as some printings of the same comic can look a quite clean inside, while others demonstrate extreme levels of bleeding, both through pages and into facing pages. My originals from this era weren't very well cared for (very heavily read by me!) but never compacted under books or exposed to unfortunate levels of humidity, so fall somewhere in the middle mostly.
|
|